Wikipedia:Peer review/Jurassic/archive1

Jurassic

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded this article approximately 6x since December, and it is now by far the longest geological period article. I modelled it after Paleocene, which is the only geological timespan article to be listed as either GA or FA. Some of the prose is clunky and repetitive, but I think the overall structure of the article is sound. Thanks, Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Chidgk1

I am ignorant of the subject but I noticed the lead has a sentence about the beginning of the Toarcian stage, but not about the beginnings of the Middle and Late Epochs. Aren't the epochs a more important subdivision? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no significant event that defines these boundaries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you use User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js As the blog then shows up red maybe put a hidden comment to future editors if it should not be deleted and why. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the "further reading" section - e.g. I wonder whether a good overview book has been published since 2004. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The further reading section is a holdover from before I started editing the article, I have been meaning to cull it at some point before taking it to GA, the Jurassic is such an expansive topic that a "good overview book" covering all relevant aspects probably doesn't exist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you submit it for GA as soon as you close this peer review as often there is a long wait for GAR.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Femke

(not specifically for GA, just improvements in general) Thanks for working on a core article! More to come later hopefully.

• The article stands at 9,411 words. For a sciency article as this, I'd advice going back to around 8,000 to make sure they can be maintained properly. Shorter articles are more likely to attract reviewers

The Paleocene article stands at just under 8,000 words, yet covers only 1/5 of the timespan. I think that 9,500 words is reasonable if the most important things are to be covered, but I agree that some parts of the article can be trimmed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Consider using {{TOC limit|3}} to make the table of contents less intimidating

Done

• The Toarcian is named after the village Thouars (Latin: Toarcium), just south of Saumur in the Loire Valley of France, it was defined by Alcide d'Orbigny in 1842 originally from Vrines quarry around 2 km northwest of the village. I don't understand the second half of this sentence. Split in two and reword?

Done

• Stratigraphy -> All paragraphs start with approximately the same words, can this be rewritten more exitingly?

Partially done, it's difficult to think of a way to creatively phrase 11 similar sentences. I'll try to think of some more later.

• Split the first paragraph of climate into three paragraphs or shorten. Quite a bit too much information for one paragraph.

Done

• Fn33 has that annoying date error. Change to August 2001, or just 2001. (2001-08 can be ambiguous meaning 2001-2008, hence the error). FemkeMilene (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Done

• I think the climate data in the infobox is wrong. It doesn't correspond to the body. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that these values are too contentious to include in the box, removed.

Oooh nooh. My climate scientist brain is sad. I'm sure you know best, but I think you could give the range that is cited in the body. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js, you can see most sources under sources aren't used (anymore) for inline citations. Move to further reading or remove. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  You've been too radical here, the 4(?) sources that were used now throw errors. Install the script to see which, and place those back :). FemkeMilene (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Celestial body Earth -> remove from infobox, clear from context
• The Jurassic (/dʒʊˈræs.sɪk/ juu-RASS-ik[2]) is a geologic period and system that spanned 56 million years from the end of the Triassic Period 201.3 million years ago (Mya) to the beginning of the Cretaceous Period approximately 145 Mya. -> quite a difficult first sentence.
  • I'm probably going against some global consensus, but I think API spelling is not suitable for a lede, as very few people understand what it means.
  • I don't understand what system means. Is it possible to delegate it to a second sentence and explain?
  • You have redandant information (201.3 - 145 = 56), I suggest removing the lenght.
  • Triassic Period -> As period is capitalized, it forms part of the name, so should also be wikilinked, right? Same with Cretacious
• Avoid starting all three sentences with The Jurassic in the first paragraph. Replace the last one with It?
• The first birds also appeared -> also what? The previous sentence doesn't talk about any species appearing, just becoming dominant
• Merge 3rd and 4th paragraph lede? That will bring you to canonical 4 paragraphs for a lede of a long article.

Accessibility

• Are the words in the infobox time-line too small? Min is 85% of normal size, and Kimmeridgian may be smaller. There is horizontal space, at least on my settings, right of the extinction event text.
• Use the {{lang}} template for foreign words such as Jura-Kalkstein, so that text-to-speech programs know what to do
• Provide alts for the images: MOS:ACCIM
• Mild sandwiching in 'Paleogeography and tectonics'

Body

• The first paragraph of 'Paleogeography and tectonics' is too long. Splitting it will help sovle sandwiching. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Done

• According to the meta analysis of Christopher Scotese and colleagues (2021) -> If it's not controversial, scrap this introduction. The results from meta-analyses can typically be phrased in wikivoice with the appropriate indication of uncertainty.
• The flora section would improve if it focusses on the major narratives instead of individual species.
  • Think of questions like (I have no idea whether there is a grain of truth in this, but this type): the world was covered in trees, but the biodiversity was significantly lower than modern-day forests. Because the climate was such as such, plants were probably adjusted more the the heat with X and Y.

It's hard to find sources that make such generalist statements like that, but I agree that the prose could be tighened.

• The fauna section similarly needs a general paragraph: which fauna dominated?
• Multiple paragraphs within fauna need splitting on length grounds.

done

• There are no notes left, so heading can be removed

done

That was it from me, ping me if things are unclear. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

quick comment by Cas Liber

Looks pretty comprehensive. Only had very limited time so didn't analyse much - plant section looks a bit choppy but will no doubt be fine-tuned. Structure looks sound. Great to see the period/epoch articles getting the buffing now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunkloesteus77

• In the Stratigraphy section, because there're so many subdivisions, it may be good to make it a bulleted list so it appears less daunting to read   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)